45293/05 was lodged with the Court on 16   November 2005 by Mr Valentin Mikhaylovich Popov, who was born on 25   April 1941 and lives in Uglegorsk, Sakhalin Region.

margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }       FIRST SECTION Application no. 59705/12 Valentina

width:178.62pt; display:inline-block } .s8EFC8F8 { width:32.36pt; display:inline-block } .s5A070004 { width:213.96pt; display:inline-block }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 43331/12 Valentina

The letter also stated that during his detention in the IVS the applicant had made no complaints concerning his health. 8.

If the conditions provided for in Article 304 are satisfied, the court makes a decision to send the case for supervisory review and transmits the case to the Presidium within five days after this decision

The Court finds that, following the applicants’ express agreement to the terms of the declarations made by the Government, the cases should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties.

    By a letter dated 29 March 2012 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by the applications.

the main legal question raised in the present applications and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the remaining complaints (see   Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of   Valentin

: “If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made

    The Court observes that the applicant company was supposed to make the payments in 2008 and 2009.

    Relying on Articles 5, 6, 10 and 18 of the Convention, some applicants also made additional complaints related to the same facts and legal issues which had been examined by the Court (see

It thus finds that there is no need to give a separate ruling on this complaint (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu   v. Romania [GC], no.

Although in their submissions the Government do not specifically mention the problem of lack of remedy, the Court notes that those submissions are made in the context of implementation of the Yuriy  

It thus considers that the applicant’s remaining complaint is admissible but that there is no need to give a separate ruling on it (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v.

has examined the main legal question raised in the present applications and that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resourceson behalf of Valentin

It thus finds that there is no need to give a separate ruling on this complaint (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v.

The applicant association has no branches and its board of directors is made up of local residents.

THE LAW After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints

Italy (no. 8681/05) Valentini v.